Answer To the Mustang GT500 vs. E92 M3

[DamirM3]

Check out the reaction time at the end of this race,
The new M3 would have won without any problems if the driver had reaction time as the other driver.

[SoCalTony]

that really didnt answer anything

[lawjizams]

That is clearly not a GT500 in that vid. Not to mention the 1/4 mile times. 14.2 for the mustang and 14.9 for the m3? Guy in the M3 cant drive and also the mustang owner got those huge dubs slowing him down. A stock mustang should run under 14's stock.

[MMMazing07]

as said thats just a Mustang GT. a GT500 would destroy a E9X M3. Both launches sucked. The Mustang is a automatic. That M3 need to take drag strip lessons. O yeah and those wheels on the Mustang

[mkoesel]

WARNING - Critical Thread Failure! Abort! Abort!

- Its no GT500 (already poited out)
- Even with a perfect RT (assuming its a .500 light) the M3 would have still lost
- Both drivers sucked
- There's no proof that the times at the end are real

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

WARNING - Critical Thread Failure! Abort! Abort!

- Its no GT500 (already poited out)
- Even with a perfect RT (assuming its a .500 light) the M3 would have still lost
- Both drivers sucked
- There's no proof that the times at the end are real

Assuming the times are real, the poorly driven M3 lost by about ten car lengths. If the driver had been as awake as the Mustang driver off the line, the difference would've been about 7 car lengths in favor of the Ford.

And again, reaction times in no way affect your ET or speed. They just tend to have an effect on who wins and who loses. It's who crosses the finish line first that determines the win, regardless of ETs and speeds.

As mentioned, this is silliness, proving nothing. A properly driven Mustang GT should be about a second (ten car lengths) slower than a properly driven M3.

Bruce

[GhOsT_E90]

Looks like Bitburg Germany, and those times suck.